I
have received several letters similar to the one printed in the journal by David
F. Siemens, Jr. (Vol. 39, No. 4, Dec. 1987, p. 250) about my Dec. 1986 JASA article
on community, but hesitated to respond because it is my perception that my
original discussion was not ambiguous in the least. I certainly did not imply,
or even mean to imply, that Ananias and Sapphira died because they lacked
community, and for this reason withheld part of what they had promised. I had
always understood that it was because they, as the Scripture clearly states,
lied to the Holy Spirit. I did not discuss this incident extensively, partly so
as to fulfill the editor's requirements to reduce the length of my original
manuscript. I not only did not state that they were killed because of not
expressing community, but clearly stated that I used this passage only to illustrate
that "community concern was not a Christian option, but a requirement
that was practiced by all of the faithful." My sources for this conclusion
were a number of Scriptures as well as the early Christian historical records
which discuss extensively this behavior.

The issue is, why did
Ananias and Sapphira feel compelled to give such a large amount of money to the
church so that it could aid the community? It was obviously because they
perceived that this act was a Christian obligation. Where did they get this
view? It was due to the teachings of the early church, as recorded both in the
Scriptures and in the early church writings penned by the early Christians
themselves. They obviously had second thoughts about giving up so much and if it
were not for the norms and values as well as the pressure from the Christian
community from their sale, they certainly would not have felt so compelled. We
cannot assume that the prominent leaders in this church had deceitfully
convinced Ananias and Sapphira that they were giving the money to God, but the
church leaders were in fact appropriating it for their own use. I concluded that
the above was obvious, and needed no elaboration in my article. I am thus rather
surprised that one could so greatly misinterpret my discussion to the extent of
claiming that I implied that their deaths were due to withholding "part of
the sales' proceeds." I consulted a number of commentaries and Bible
dictionaries and found that, without exception, all of those that I consulted
fully support the interpretation discussed above. For example, The
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that Ananias was a Christian
who noted "the favorable attention bestowed upon those Christians who sold
their property" and so brought the receipts of the property that they sold
"to the Apostles for distribution among the believers" and with the
connivance of his wife, Sapphira "held back a portion of the price, while
pretending to give the entire amount to the Apostles for distribution." The
act of giving to the poor was thus taught as highly laudatory by the church.
Otherwise they certainly would not have felt the compulsion to, not only
withhold part of their sale funds. but also to deceive others relative to their
doing so.

Some commentators. such
as The lnterpreter's Bible vol. 9, p. 74, used this discussion as a basis
to discuss the extreme importance of community in Christianity. The
aforementioned reference noted that "man pursue their private ways with
little or no concern for the rest
of mankind" and that many of these "insulated units of humanity.
finally break down into lonely fragments of forlorn life." The discussion
then notes that many people in the former state eventually come to the
realization that community is, indeed, important and crucial. They consequently
then "look for a community where private enterprise will be redeemed by a
concern for public benefit." As to the Christian church, this commentator
concludes that it "can and must affirm the underlining principles which
govern sound community life ... but where private enterprise ... monopolizes the
fruits of the Earth which are meant to be shared by all men, and where it makes
its way without regard to the welfare of the people at large, it must be checked
either by the free consent of those concerned or by the legislated will of the
people. The incentive for such a self imposed discipline is to be found where
the first Christians found it, in Jesus; and the power to practice the
discipline is the power of the living Christ."

The classic Matthew
Henry Commentary (p. 1651) goes even further, stating relative to this
account that the early Christians were '.very liberal" in giving to the
poor, adding that every Christian "was ready to distribute" material
goods to those in need. The discussion here concludes that the norms of their
community required giving for the purpose of helping one's brethren to the
degree that "they abounded in charity, [and] they had all things in
common" so that "there was not any among them that lacked." This
commentary notes that many who had possession of land of houses sold them
and the proceeds were distributed "unto every man as he had need." The
commentator added that "great care ought to be taken in the distribution of
public charity and that it be given to such as that have need. Those who have
real need, above all, those who are reduced to want for well doing, ought to be
taken care of, and provided for. That it be given to every man according as he
has need, without penalty or respect of persons." How many is the
"many" that this account refers to, it does not state, but the word
"many," or its synonyms, is commonly used when this verse is discussed
by both commentators and in the writings of the early Christians.

The italicized words,
which Siemens notes I left out, were omitted only for reasons of brevity. These
words in no way support the claim that I am trying to state that Ananias and
Sapphira died because of a lack of charity. What bothers me most, though, are
the totally unfounded accusations in his letter. I am not "revising"
the Bible, not inferring that Ananias and Sapphira died because they
"withheld part of the proceeds."